1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
|
Return-Path: <bob_bitcoin@mcelrath.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 158DB11A1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 31 Dec 2015 00:04:47 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mcelrath.org (moya.mcelrath.org [50.31.3.130])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90021169
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 31 Dec 2015 00:04:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mcelrath.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mcelrath.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.4) with ESMTP id tBV04hFk024823
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT);
Thu, 31 Dec 2015 00:04:43 GMT
Received: (from mcelrath@localhost)
by mcelrath.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id tBV04hXX024822;
Thu, 31 Dec 2015 00:04:43 GMT
X-Authentication-Warning: mcelrath.org: mcelrath set sender to
bob_bitcoin@mcelrath.org using -f
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 00:04:42 +0000
From: Bob McElrath <bob_bitcoin@mcelrath.org>
To: Jonathan Toomim <j@toom.im>
Message-ID: <20151231000442.GK18200@mcelrath.org>
References: <1bf64a5b514d57ca37744ae5f5238149@openmailbox.org>
<e170f3a10164019824edaafe5a04f067@xbt.hk>
<f9ad1348fb7dedca35b594782fee7e0f@openmailbox.org>
<20151230190043.GJ18200@mcelrath.org>
<16BFC301-58C1-49F9-B2E5-A2C09C82A8CA@toom.im>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <16BFC301-58C1-49F9-B2E5-A2C09C82A8CA@toom.im>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Increasing the blocksize as a (generalized)
softfork.
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 00:04:47 -0000
Jonathan Toomim [j@toom.im] wrote:
>
> The generalized softfork method has the advantage of being merge-mined
That's an over-generalization. There are two kinds of soft-forks WRT mining,
those which:
1. involve new validation rules by data-hiding from non-upgraded modes
(e.g. extension blocks, generalized softfork)
2. involve NO new validation logic (e.g. P2SH)
Miners which are not validating transactions *should* be deprived of revenue,
because their role is transaction validation, not simply brute forcing sha256d.
So I'm very strongly against this "generalized softfork" idea -- I also don't
see how upgraded nodes and non-upgraded nodes can possibly end up with the same
UTXO set.
> > Once a chain is seen to be 6 or more blocks ahead of my chain tip, we should
> > enter "zombie mode" and refuse to mine or relay
>
> I like this method. However, it does have the problem of being voluntary. If
> nodes don't upgrade to a version that has the latent zombie gene long before a
> fork, then it does nothing.
Which is why it should be put into core long before forks. ;-)
--
Cheers, Bob McElrath
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong."
-- H. L. Mencken
|
